Horrible answer to lowering crime - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sweetpea · 10-10-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

How do 12% of the population cause 100% of the crime in this country? Seems to me that blacks are a convient scapegoat for Bennett.

Indeed Hardknock makes a point here.

all populations living as minorities are easy targets for basically any political issues... esp. crime.

Nevermind the fact that it's not really 'race' that has anything to do with crime... but rather economics... impoverished/desperate people living in places with low level economies.....
Lack of good educational systems and decent job training and/or lack of a decent job market that pays living wages... now THOSE are things that make crime sky rocket... not the color of one's skin in my opinion.

Sweetpea

Anomaly_ · 10-10-2005, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohh_shesus

While I do believe that crime stems from having a lack of resources, I do not believe that abortion is the answer. People need to look into better education and supply more opportunities to people in poverty. But I will let you state your thoughts while I go fume for awhile.

"Better education" and "more oppurtunities" generally translate into ineffectively throwing money at the problem. This Bennett fiasco is only shameful because viable solutions to the problem were not discussed. When I say "problem," I mean the scourge of children growing up in deplorable environments and then pumping out many children of their own in the same squalor. Nonetheless, politicians of nearly every persuasion refuse to look at the ultimate source of cyclic poverty, crime, and drug use.

One remedy (but not a solution in any sense), is to require that adult female welfare recipients receive mandatory Norplant or Depo-Provera injections. Reactionaries may see this as a eugenics program, but it is nothing more than a reasonable contractual obligation. Additionally, it upholds the notion that the quality of life for a future child is more important than an unfitting person's right to have a child. Ostensibly this sounds like a pro-life type of argument, but it is certainly not given that there is no fertilization to begin with. It would also make sense to extend this mandatory birth control to drug-offending mothers--I realize this seems slanted against women but there does not yet exist an approved alternative for men.

Of course, politicians will continue to address the issue further down the pipeline where the answer becomes more prisons and more programs. Instead of trying to feebly corral the sociopaths of society who generally come from destitute environments, wouldn't it make more sense to prevent their existence outright and to foster more responsibility for those unfit to have children?

smooth · 10-10-2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

We sure do, but rather than focus on the meaning of Bennett's words, you continue to make wild misinterpretations, bad analogies, and factual misstatements.

While we're on the subject of ignorance, however, I'm going to post a link/quote. Since you asked to "explain where he is right," here it is. Since you appear determined not to understand his words, I'm not going to post an explanation of the actual meaning of Bennett's statement for you.

One of many links that say this

Unlike you, I am not under the impression that Bennett, a staunch anti-abortionist, wants to abort black babies. That would be ignorant.

However, feel free to "explain where he's wrong."

My dispute was with the examples he chose, rather than the deed being done. I agree with you that he isn't really advocating abortion of black babies. That statement is so far from the realm of reason that only two groups of people who might think it's a viable topic to discuss seems to me to be radicals on any edge of the spectrum. The rest of us liberals can give him a pass on that comment without too much issue (not that I control the passes, but that I can in some cases decide to not recognize racism in paritilar places.

My whole point in the debate about the two looting/gathering pictures was that there was an example of two presumably non-racist (or at least would be disappointed with themselves if some thought there appearing to be racicts)--but that the actions of these two normal characters replicated aspects of our society's relationship with race, class, and the downtroden.

Specifically, we have Bennett claiming he wasn't racist in his comments because he wasn't really advocating the policy. But some of us respond to the cause of example--the underlying assumptions: black babies create a disproportonate amount of the crime. Not only the statement appears problematic in light of cultural notions of how we collectively speak of the history of racism in this country, but it is only rational as a response to the mechanisms that created the phenomenon.

So then we are left with racist artifacts floating into general consensus wihtout any malicious intent behind them, so they appear benevolent, and then this reframes the issue of abortion and mnarginalizes th evoices of the people most directly affected by the policy: black babies

And then we wonder what kind of power black babies have over the policies that most directly affect them, and it appears to be none .We would then turn to their advocates and wonder how much of their will they wre able to exert over the proces (veber-power) and if we conclucde that all of those groups have not much ability to have their voices heard and responded to in this debate, then we have someone's racist comment (with no intent of being offensive) that filtes through the structure and confirms our popular conceptions about something, and then settles next to us and it makes perferct sense that the item causing the disruption is perfectly explained by the time it returns to the person as an effect,

I have no idea if that made sense. I'm going to have to rearead this when I'm not on strange substances.

n0nsensical · 10-10-2005, 11:31 PM

I totally agree it's economic status and not race per se that predisposes people to crime--I think it would be ridiculous to suggest black people are predisposed to crime simply because they are black. I don't think anyone including Bennett is doing that. We have two groups of people, one is focusing on this racial aspect and saying it's wrong to be racist and the other is focusing on the accuracy of the statement. You won't find much argument against your point that it's wrong to be racist and blame black people for crime. That's simply not what we're trying to argue. One can tell who are the potential lawyers in this thread.

He would have been better off to say "abort all babies" instead of "abort black babies" because the statement would still be accurate and the "OMG racist" alarms wouldn't have gone off. He would have been still better off not to say anything of the sort because any mention of abortion is sure to cause problems, and there are also sure to be people who misunderstand him or take him out of context as if he actually thinks this would be a good idea. I suppose he could still incidentally be a racist; I just don't think this statement necessarily implies that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

You and I both know that factual analysis was not the driving force behind him making this ignorant statement.

On second thought I'm not sure that you don't know....

I actually missed this the first time around, and assuming it was addressed to me, no, I don't know that. I wouldn't post something I didn't believe as if I did. What are you saying, he said it because he's a racist and would really like to abort black babies?

rsl12 · 10-11-2005, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea

Lack of good educational systems and decent job training and/or lack of a decent job market that pays living wages... now THOSE are things that make crime sky rocket... not the color of one's skin in my opinion.

Is anyone here saying otherwise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

...we have Bennett claiming he wasn't racist in his comments because he wasn't really advocating the policy. But some of us respond to the cause of example--the underlying assumptions: black babies create a disproportonate amount of the crime. Not only the statement appears problematic in light of cultural notions of how we collectively speak of the history of racism in this country, but it is only rational as a response to the mechanisms that created the phenomenon.

I had a hard time understanding this, so I'm going to try and clarify your argument. Tell me if I goof up.

You start with the statements "Bennet had claimed he wasn't racist", and that his rationale for this claim is that "he wasn't really advocating this policy [of aborting all black babies]". I'm not sure where you're getting either piece of information: I don't see any record of Bennet denying being a racist. And although he does describe the policy of aborting all black babies as reprehensible, he does so in support of an implied argument that "just because an action lowers crime doesn't mean that it's morally justified", and not in support of the argument that "Bennet is not a racist."

It is true that Bennet's argument works only if his audience agrees that aborting all black babies is reprehensible. Perhaps it is this implied understanding between Bennet and his audience from which you draw the conclusion that Bennet is claiming not to be a racist. For now, I'll assume this to be the case. So Bennet is claiming not to be a racist, and you're trying to refute this claim--i.e., to prove that Bennet is, in fact, a racist.

So in arguing that Bennet is not a racist, you say that Bennet's underlying assumption was that "black babies create a disproportonate amount of the crime." I think this is almost the assumption--reading the transcript, it appears that Bennet's underlying assumption is slightly more specific: As of this moment, black babies in the United States will grow up to create a disproportionate amount of the crime. I think you'd agree to this slightly modified version upon review of the text.

You continue: "[the statement] is only rational as a response to the mechanisms that created the phenomenon." I think you're trying to say the following: Since Bennet believes that aborting black babies will reduce crime, the rational conclusion is that he believes that black people are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals. I *almost* agree with this statement--the one word I would edit is the word 'rational.' This would not be a rational conclusion--the perfectly rational being would realize that even if B implies A, A does not necessarily imply B. Instead of 'rational', I think the proper word to use in this context is 'gut-instinct': since Bennet believes that aborting black babies will reduce crime, the gut-instinct conclusion is that he believes that black people are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals. I hope you'll agree--based on how you continue your argument, I think this is what you meant anyways.

You continue by saying, "So then we are left with racist artifacts floating into general consensus wihtout any malicious intent behind them, so they appear benevolent, and then this reframes the issue[s]..." By "racist artifact", I think you're refering to the notion that blacks are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals, and that Bennet is propogating this idea with his statements. This seems to be in support of an implied, but unstated, argument, that "you have to be careful when publicly talking about racial issues." This, I think, is a statement for which you will not find any dissent. Based on previous posts from others, it appears that everyone is in agreement that things would have been better if Bennet had not made the statements he made. The remainder of your message continues in this vein, and as the issue is uncontroversial, I'll skip discussion of it.

Instead, let's backtrack to the contentious issue: Is Bennet a racist? As I described above, you only offer the following argument in support of your claim that he is: "[the statement that aborting all black babies would reduce crime] is only rational as a response to the mechanisms that created the phenomenon." If by 'rational', you really meant 'gut-instinct', what you're really talking about are the conclusions drawn by the general mass of casual listeners, and the fact that you have to be careful when talking publicly about racial issues (which is, as described above, an uncontroversial issue).

If by 'rational' you really meant 'rational', the argument is not particularly convincing. As proof that this is not a rational syllogism, I would like to point to the number of people posting on this board that agree that aborting all black babies in the United States right now would lower crime in the future, but do not believe that blacks are inherently more likely to be predisposed to crime.

flstf · 10-11-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea
Lack of good educational systems and decent job training and/or lack of a decent job market that pays living wages... now THOSE are things that make crime sky rocket... not the color of one's skin in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsl12

Is anyone here saying otherwise?

Maybe I'm getting cynical as I get older but I wonder if there isn't just as high a percentage of criminals among the educated well to do as the unwashed masses. It's just that their crimes of insider trading, pension fund raiding, contract fixing, etc.. go undetected and with their influence, mostly unpunished.
I also imagine that the crimes of the wealthy, polititians, CEOs, etc.. cost us a lot more money than the street crimes of the lower classes.

The high crime rate seems to have something to do with our attitudes/integrity today. As I recall reading about the great depression where so many were very poor and out of work, the crime rate wasn't nearly as high as it is today.

Back to the thread topic, as many others have already said, I think that Bennet's statements were true but an unfortunate choice of an example and choice of words. To the casual listener they seem racist. I think he got caught up in trying to defend his anti-abortion position and tried to come up with a ridiculous example that backfired on him.

smooth · 10-11-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsl12

Is anyone here saying otherwise?

I had a hard time understanding this, so I'm going to try and clarify your argument. Tell me if I goof up.

You start with the statements "Bennet had claimed he wasn't racist", and that his rationale for this claim is that "he wasn't really advocating this policy [of aborting all black babies]". I'm not sure where you're getting either piece of information: I don't see any record of Bennet denying being a racist. And although he does describe the policy of aborting all black babies as reprehensible, he does so in support of an implied argument that "just because an action lowers crime doesn't mean that it's morally justified", and not in support of the argument that "Bennet is not a racist."

It is true that Bennet's argument works only if his audience agrees that aborting all black babies is reprehensible. Perhaps it is this implied understanding between Bennet and his audience from which you draw the conclusion that Bennet is claiming not to be a racist. For now, I'll assume this to be the case. So Bennet is claiming not to be a racist, and you're trying to refute this claim--i.e., to prove that Bennet is, in fact, a racist.

So in arguing that Bennet is not a racist, you say that Bennet's underlying assumption was that "black babies create a disproportonate amount of the crime." I think this is almost the assumption--reading the transcript, it appears that Bennet's underlying assumption is slightly more specific: As of this moment, black babies in the United States will grow up to create a disproportionate amount of the crime. I think you'd agree to this slightly modified version upon review of the text.

You continue: "[the statement] is only rational as a response to the mechanisms that created the phenomenon." I think you're trying to say the following: Since Bennet believes that aborting black babies will reduce crime, the rational conclusion is that he believes that black people are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals. I *almost* agree with this statement--the one word I would edit is the word 'rational.' This would not be a rational conclusion--the perfectly rational being would realize that even if B implies A, A does not necessarily imply B. Instead of 'rational', I think the proper word to use in this context is 'gut-instinct': since Bennet believes that aborting black babies will reduce crime, the gut-instinct conclusion is that he believes that black people are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals. I hope you'll agree--based on how you continue your argument, I think this is what you meant anyways.

You continue by saying, "So then we are left with racist artifacts floating into general consensus wihtout any malicious intent behind them, so they appear benevolent, and then this reframes the issue[s]..." By "racist artifact", I think you're refering to the notion that blacks are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals, and that Bennet is propogating this idea with his statements. This seems to be in support of an implied, but unstated, argument, that "you have to be careful when publicly talking about racial issues." This, I think, is a statement for which you will not find any dissent. Based on previous posts from others, it appears that everyone is in agreement that things would have been better if Bennet had not made the statements he made. The remainder of your message continues in this vein, and as the issue is uncontroversial, I'll skip discussion of it.

Instead, let's backtrack to the contentious issue: Is Bennet a racist? As I described above, you only offer the following argument in support of your claim that he is: "[the statement that aborting all black babies would reduce crime] is only rational as a response to the mechanisms that created the phenomenon." If by 'rational', you really meant 'gut-instinct', what you're really talking about are the conclusions drawn by the general mass of casual listeners, and the fact that you have to be careful when talking publicly about racial issues (which is, as described above, an uncontroversial issue).

If by 'rational' you really meant 'rational', the argument is not particularly convincing. As proof that this is not a rational syllogism, I would like to point to the number of people posting on this board that agree that aborting all black babies in the United States right now would lower crime in the future, but do not believe that blacks are inherently more likely to be predisposed to crime.

Bravo, man, that was excellent. I'm surprised you were able to tease out what I was trying to say. I was actually having trouble typing the correct keys last night due to some heavy duty pain killers.

Anyway, in regard to my use of the term "rational." I only meant it in a colloquial way--yes, the "gut instinct" kind of way. His statement only "makes sense" to me if I understand it this particular way.

I'm also pulling information from other sources (as in his denial of being racist), such as, interviews on O'Reilly show and Hannity & Colmbes.

pan6467 · 10-11-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

How about we abort all the white babies, then there wouldn't be any self centered assholes running around.

The fact that you people are defending his argument while trying to say that "in context" he's right, makes me sick.

I agree wholeheartedly, this statement, was divisive, inciteful and hateful in ANY context and how anyone can defend it or make excuses for it, to me shows that they believe this statement.

For someone who held the Secretary of Education position to say this, is extremely problematic because of the obvious racism. One has to ask if he carried this attitude while in office and did it affect spending in urban, minority based schools.

Marvelous Marv · 10-11-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

My dispute was with the examples he chose, rather than the deed being done. I agree with you that he isn't really advocating abortion of black babies. That statement is so far from the realm of reason that only two groups of people who might think it's a viable topic to discuss seems to me to be radicals on any edge of the spectrum. The rest of us liberals can give him a pass on that comment without too much issue (not that I control the passes, but that I can in some cases decide to not recognize racism in paritilar places...I have no idea if that made sense. I'm going to have to rearead this when I'm not on strange substances.

Actually, it made sense to me.

Marvelous Marv · 10-11-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsl12

I think the proper word to use in this context is 'gut-instinct': since Bennet believes that aborting black babies will reduce crime, the gut-instinct conclusion is that he believes that black people are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals. I hope you'll agree--based on how you continue your argument, I think this is what you meant anyways.

Why do you use the word "inherently?" Is it not possible he meant blacks are more likely to commit crimes due to the effects of racism, slavery, or de facto segregation?

I can't see where Bennett gave the slightest hint that he thought blacks were genetically predisposed to commit crimes, which would be the only condition under which racism could be demonstrated in his statement.

Marvelous Marv · 10-11-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I agree wholeheartedly, this statement, was divisive, inciteful and hateful in ANY context and how anyone can defend it or make excuses for it, to me shows that they believe this statement.

I have yet to see a person demonstrate that the statement is untrue. Feel free to be the first.

ALL races, creeds, nations, etc. have current or past behaviors that are unenviable. The Germans and Japanese, Christians, whoever. I could find dozens of examples on these boards in which Christians (okay, sometimes they are called "radical" Christians) are reviled for their behavior. I don't recall seeing you, or Hardknock, having fits about it.

Is it your position that no one is allowed to point out a less-than-admirable behavior engaged in by some blacks?

It sure seems that way.

[edit: added the word "some" to avoid accusations]